{"id":10446,"date":"2019-04-10T18:58:24","date_gmt":"2019-04-11T00:58:24","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=10446"},"modified":"2019-04-10T19:38:02","modified_gmt":"2019-04-11T01:38:02","slug":"pending-case-of-note-polaris-v-kingston","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=10446","title":{"rendered":"Pending case of note:  Polaris v. Kingston"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>There is an interesting case wending its way through the briefing process at the Federal Circuit, <em>Polaris v. Kingston<\/em>.  In its opening brief Polaris asserts that APJ&#8217;s cannot extinguish patent rights via an IPR because they have not been appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The USPTO has intervened in the case.  In its brief filed last week, the USPTO asserts that APJ&#8217;s are &#8220;Inferior Officers whose appointment Congress permissibly vested in the Secretary of Commerce.&#8221;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>It sounds as if this will be an interesting case to follow.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Polaris&#8217; opening brief is available here:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-file\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/04\/Appellants-Brief-Polaris-2.pdf\">Appellant&#8217;s Brief <\/a><a href=\"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/04\/Appellants-Brief-Polaris-2.pdf\" class=\"wp-block-file__button\" download>Download<\/a><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p>The USPTO&#8217;s intervenor brief is available here:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-file\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/04\/Intervenors-brief-Polaris.pdf\">USPTO&#8217;s Intervenor Brief<\/a><a href=\"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/04\/Intervenors-brief-Polaris.pdf\" class=\"wp-block-file__button\" download>Download<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>There is an interesting case wending its way through the briefing process at the Federal Circuit, Polaris v. Kingston. In its opening brief Polaris asserts that APJ&#8217;s cannot extinguish patent rights via an IPR because they have not been appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The USPTO has intervened in the case. [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10446"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=10446"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10446\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":10454,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10446\/revisions\/10454"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=10446"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=10446"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=10446"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}